School district business is our expertise. With more than 30 attorneys dedicated to advising public agencies on the complex array of issues encountered while conducting their operations, Lozano Smith is prepared to share our knowledge gained in preparing thousands of contracts and helping school districts build hundreds of facilities. The business of schools is vast - from daily vendor contracts, to budgeting and revenue generation, our attorneys routinely advise on and advocate for school districts. Equally, Lozano Smith provides counsel and support on all aspects of real property and facilities issues. When a novel issue presents itself, we work closely with our clients to develop creative, efficient and effective solutions. And, if a contract is challenged or a construction project goes awry, our litigation team has a proven track record of success.

Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Practice Group specializes in:

Business

  • Budgeting Issues, Funding Disputes & Audit Appeals
  • Procurement of Supplies and Services
  • Contract Development and Review
  • Energy Issues
  • Public Finance including Bond Counsel Services
  • Technology Procurement and Contracting

Facilities

  • Bidding, Bid Challenges and Alternative Project Delivery
  • Selecting and Contracting with Construction Professionals
  • Construction Contract Development and Administration
  • Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements
  • Construction Advice & Litigation
  • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
  • Developer Fees and School Facilities Mitigation
  • Prop. 39 Procurement and Contracting
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • State Funding and the School Facilities Program
  • Joint Facilities Use

Real Property

  • Land Acquisition - Purchase and Exchange
  • Due Diligence Issues including CDE Approval and Resolution of Title Exceptions
  • Eminent Domain
  • Land Use and Zoning Issues
  • Leases, Easements and Other Property Interests
  • Charter School Facilities and Prop. 39 Offers
  • Surplus Property Disposition
Sacramento, San Diego dmaruccia@lozanosmith.com
James  Sanchez Senior Counsel
Fresno, Monterey jsanchez@lozanosmith.com
Fresno, Sacramento, Bakersfield jbehrens@lozanosmith.com
Los Angeles, San Diego tsims@lozanosmith.com
Los Angeles, Mission Viejo wcurley@lozanosmith.com

New Laws Will Impact Public Work Projects

By:Anne Collins, Peter Sumulong -

November 2019Number 65Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two laws that will impact public works contracts in California. Assembly Bill (AB) 456 extends the operative date for the current contractor claims resolution process to January 1, 2027. AB 1768 expands the definition of "public works" for purposes of paying prevailing wage, regulating working hours, and securing worker's compensation.AB 456The law as currently stated in Public Contract Code section 9204 prescribes a claims resolution pro...

New Law Requiring Later Start Times For Middle Schools And High Schools Creates Uncertainty For Educational Agencies

By:Ruth Mendyk, Joshua Whiteside -

November 2019Number 66Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 328, which establishes new mandatory school day start times for most middle schools and high schools. SB 328 adds section 46148 to the Education Code, requiring high schools to set the beginning of the school day no earlier than 8:30 a.m., and middle schools at no earlier than 8:00 a.m. The reasoning behind this new law is based on studies showing increased academic performance, school attendance, and health for students at s...

AB 48 Increases Bonding Capacity, Provides Facilities Funding At Multiple Levels, Prioritizes Small School Districts, And Reduces Available Developer Fees For School Districts … But Only Applies If Voters Approve A School Facilities Bond In March

By:Harold Freiman, Daniel Maruccia, Deepika Thompson, James McCann -

October 2019Number 62The California Legislature recently passed, and on October 7 Governor Newsom signed, Assembly Bill (AB) 48, known as the "Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020."AB 48 places a $15 billion statewide K-12 school and college facilities general obligation bond on the March 3, 2020 ballot.Contingent on voter approval of the statewide bond measure at the Presidential Primary election on March 3, 2020, AB 48 would introduce a slew of significant ...

New Law Will Significantly Impact Local Agencies’ Disposition Of Property; Impact On School Districts Is Limited

By:Kelly Rem, Bradley Sena -

October 2019Number 61On October 9, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that will have sweeping effects on local agencies disposing of real property under the California Surplus Land Act. Assembly Bill (AB) 1486 adds several new requirements to the process, as well as potentially severe penalties for non-compliance. The bill also makes changes to planning and zoning laws applicable to cities and counties. Application of the new law to school districts is expressly limited.Change...

Legislature Postpones Sunset Of Civic Center Act Fee Provisions

By:Claudia Weaver, Benjamin Brown -

October 2019Number 55Assembly Bill (AB) 1303, which was recently signed by the Governor, will postpone the sunset of central fee provisions within the Civic Center Act (Act).The Act generally requires school districts to permit the use of their facilities and grounds for particular purposes. The Act further authorizes, and in some cases requires, school districts to charge users for their use of school facilities. The Legislature originally provided that these provisions would be repealed as ...

AB 5: New Law Further Limits Employers’ Ability To Classify Workers As Independent Contractors

By:Michelle Cannon, Travis Lindsey -

October 2019Number 53Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) on September 18, 2019, which takes effect on January 1, 2020. AB 5 codifies the California Supreme Court's decision inDynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex) (see 2018 Client News Brief No. 20), which made it more difficult to classify a worker as an independent contractor. This new legislation also creates additional protections for workers.In Dynamex, the Court held that, for purposes of Indu...

Significant New Developer Fee Cases

By:Harold Freiman, Devon Lincoln, Kelly Rem, Benjamin Brown -

October 2019Number 44As part of an uptick of cases in recent years regarding school impact fees, two recent cases argued by Lozano Smith on behalf of school districts have been decided by the California Sixth District Court of Appeal, with mixed results. The court ruled in relation to an "adults only" agricultural worker housing project that, when imposing prospective developer fees on development projects, school districts need not establish a reasonable relationship between the fee and the ...

Representative Cases

Lozano Smith was part of the team representing Los Angeles Unified School District in Williams v. State of California, a massive statewide class action involving alleged conditions in public schools including alleged inequalities in school facilities, instructional materials and teachers, particularly at underperforming schools that were already the subject of various state and federal categorical programs.
Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794. Assisted eleven school districts with invalidating audits of several state mandated cost reimbursement claims worth more than $30 million, based upon the use of invalid, underground auditing documentation rule by the State Controller’s Office. The firm was later able to receive an award of $240,000 from the superior court for fees and costs incurred in the litigation efforts, largely offsetting the school districts’ legal costs in the case.
Oak Grove Elementary School District v. George W. Putris, as Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV261473. Represented the District in a complex matter related to a parcel tax authorized by the District's Board and approved by voters in 1991. The District returned to the voters every four years to re-obtain approval to increase the appropriations limit to spend tax revenues, but uncertainty loomed in 2014 regarding whether the District still had authority to collect taxes in 2014 after not needing to increase the annual appropriations limit that same year. The County Tax Collector was unclear whether it still had the authority to collect the taxes, therefore leading to Lozano Smith filing a lawsuit on behalf of the District seeking a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the County Tax Collector to collect parcel taxes. The lawsuit resulted in a stipulated judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Tax Collector to collect the parcel tax.
Morgan Hill Unified School District v. Minter & Fahy Construction Company, Inc. et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. CV772368 (2002-2003). As part of a three week jury trial, successfully represented the school district against contractor and pipe manufacturer arising from underground fuel storage tank that leaked, and obtained judgment in excess of $2 million including interest and attorney’s fees. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.
Modtech Holdings v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District. On two separate elementary school projects totaling $4 million, the District withheld substantial sums to cover damages caused the contractor. One project under the control of the contractor had a fire, with the contractor refusing to compensate the District. The other project suffered construction deficiencies in the stucco and roof. The contractor sued for improper withholding and the District cross-complained for additional damages, resulting in a $1 million dispute. After discovery and expert investigation revealed additional claims for the District, the case resolved very favorably for the District a few months short of trial.
R. Baker, Inc. v. Coast Unified School District. A school district was subject to multi-million dollar design, delay and defect claims related to construction of a new elementary school located in the Coastal Zone. The project also suffered from an inadequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), thus causing the school district to be fined in excess of $300,000. The litigation settled favorably for the District at mediation.
Mountain Cascade v. Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District entered a contract with the plaintiff to install a recycled water pipeline. As part of the original plans and specifications, the contract also called for the additional installation of fiber optic conduits. However, after award the District deleted the fiber optic work from the project since the bid on that line item was excessive. The District then added back a small portion of the fiber optic work that was within the budget. The contractor sued the District for lost profits based on the deleted work. Our attorney won summary judgment for the District based on the broad right to add and delete work, and successfully defended the decision on appeal.
Pajaro Valley USD v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., et al. Due to a combination of construction and architectural roof design defects, a new district school was infected with mold throughout its buildings. Lozano Smith attorneys successfully represented the school district in recovering in excess of $3 million for remedial efforts and new construction from litigation prosecuted against the general contractor, architect, and insurer on the district insurance risk policy.
Teichert Construction v. City of Stockton, et al. During a $15 million dual grade separation project, the contractor and one of its subcontractors submitted claims of more than $3 million based on delay. Despite many issues of delay caused by utilities and railroad companies, the case settled favorably at pre-discovery mediation for under $1 million despite a significant number of delay days for which the City had to take responsibility.
Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262. Lozano Smith successfully argued, in a case of first impression, that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs.